It says much about the in-denial Brexiters that a simple statement of fact from the Bank of England Governor, made in the most cautious of ways, has set the cat among the pigeons.

Andrew Bailey addressed the “B” word briefly in his speech at the Mansion House in London on Thursday.

Much to the displeasure of some arch-Brexiters, he declared: “Now, as I have said many times, as a public official I take no position on Brexit per se. That’s important. But I do have to point out consequences.

“The changing trading relationship with the EU has weighed on the level of potential supply. The impact on trade seems to be more in goods than services - that is not particularly surprising to my mind. But it underlines why we must be alert to and welcome opportunities to rebuild relations while respecting the decision of the British people.”

It should indeed be firmly within Mr Bailey’s remit to “point out consequences” of things for the economy.

Indeed, it would surely be remiss of him to fail to do so. It would, after all, hardly instil confidence in the Bank of England if it were to ignore the impact of Brexit in making forecasts about and commenting on the economy.

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), set up by former Conservative chancellor George Osborne in 2010 to provide independent forecasts, has for its part been quite forthright when it has come to pointing out the consequences of Brexit, and this is a very good thing.

Politicians, it appears, are terrified to upset the Brexiters.

However, senior officials in the Bank of England and OBR must, to the extent they are able within the constraints on them, lay out simply for people the consequences of Brexit.

The apparent continuing lack of awareness among much of the electorate about what the loss of frictionless trade with the UK’s largest trading partner and ending of free movement of people between the country and the European Economic Area mean makes such simple explanation all the more crucial.

However, it seems that even talk of rebuilding relations with our European neighbours is anathema to the Brexiters, judging by the storm Mr Bailey’s comments provoked from that direction. And many Brexiters clearly disagree with the Bank of England Governor’s declaration that the UK should “welcome opportunities” to rebuild such relations, given the fierce criticism Mr Bailey's comments attracted from various Leavers.

Read more

 

 

Reform UK chief whip Lee Anderson was quoted by the Daily Express as follows in relation to Mr Bailey: “This is the man who failed to see inflation coming and then was far too slow to react.

“Once again the failed establishment are trying to go over the same arguments that they have already lost.”

This is typical Brexiter fayre. You could debate the setting of interest rates by the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, of course, but at least that is something that is complex.

It was not a complex matter to envisage, ahead of the 2016 referendum, that Brexit would cause the colossal damage it is now inflicting on the UK economy.

OBR chairman Richard Hughes said in spring of last year of Brexit’s effect: “We think that in the long run it reduces our overall output by around 4% compared with had we remained in the EU.”

That is surely easy enough for everyone to understand.

What is more, it highlights just how baffling Mr Anderson’s comments about the arguments over Brexit having been “lost” actually are, assuming he is talking about the debate over the effects of the hard exit from the European Union as opposed to the actual vote.

Read more

 

 

 

Brexit is clearly having a very detrimental effect, so surely it is Mr Anderson and his fellow Leavers who have “lost” the argument, albeit too late to save the people of the UK from the consequences of the country being wrenched out of the EU.

Mr Anderson told the Daily Express: “Parliament has failed to capitalise on the full potential Brexit has to offer but it’s still far superior to membership of the European Union.”

On what planet is that the reality?

The SNP seized upon Mr Bailey’s comments, declaring on social media platform X: “The Governor of the Bank of England has urged the UK government to ‘rebuild relations with the EU’. We agree - it’s time to return to the single market & customs union.”

Sadly, the new Labour government has no intention of enabling any such thing, with Sir Keir Starmer, as observed rightly by the SNP, having performed a U-turn on Brexit.

This U-turn has been truly spectacular, even for a politician.

And Chancellor Rachel Reeves continued to emphasise Labour’s lamentable red lines on Brexit in her speech at the Mansion House on Thursday.

She declared that “we face structural challenges too, including those which have come from Brexit”.

And she added: “Of course our biggest trading partner is the European Union.”

Then we got to Labour’s actual position, one which epitomises how political considerations can sometimes result in the eschewing of options that would clearly be for the good of the country and the living standards of the people.

Ms Reeves declared: “We will not be reversing Brexit or re-entering the single market or customs union.”

More’s the pity.

We then had the following mealy-mouthed Labour line on Europe from Ms Reeves: “We must reset our relationship.”

This truly means very little. The damage is being done by the loss of frictionless trade and the ending of free movement of people.

And the fact of the matter is that Labour is prepared to let the colossal Brexit damage to the UK economy, crucially arising from these two huge losses, continue.

What Labour has proposed in terms of improving the post-Brexit relationship with the EU amounts, certainly from an economic and societal perspective, to mere tinkering around the edges.

That is clearly a great shame.

And it does nothing to alleviate the enormous challenges for a UK economy facing a very weak growth outlook or to offer any hope on this front.

Reform UK’s Mr Anderson also told the Daily Express: “It’s high time people like Andrew Bailey finally accepted the democratic decision made by the country in 2016 and focused on the day job instead.”

This is a typical Brexiter diversion tactic - try to claim that anyone who dares say something pertinent about the detrimental effects of what the Leavers have championed is not doing their “day job”.

Mr Bailey is, in pointing out “consequences”, most certainly doing his “day job”. And good for him.